"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

I'm reading a scientific research paper on the subject written by professor Jessica Utts, statistics department, University of California Davis.

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf

Her report remains controversial and this is not an endorsement of her work. I'm not taking sides on the issue as to whether I agree or not with her findings, just providing this for information. Please do not attack me personally if you don't agree, it will not be tolerated.

According to her, "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are farbeyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due tomethodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted."

She also writes, and this is very important, especially to individuals with a particular bias: "There is no reason to treat this area differently from any other area of science that relies onstatistical methods. Any discussion based on belief should be limited to questions that are notdata-driven, such as whether or not there are any methodological problems that couldsubstantially alter the results. It is too often the case that people on both sides of the questiondebate the existence of psychic functioning on the basis of their personal belief systems ratherthan on an examination of the scientific data." (Emphasis mine)

Here's another excerpt explaining why ability on demand is NOT a good measure of whether individuals are capable of performing psychic functioning.

"2.2 Statistical Issues and DefinitionsFew human capabilities are perfectly replicable on demand. For example, even the besthitters in the major baseball leagues cannot hit on demand. Nor can we predict when someonewill hit or when they will score a home run. In fact, we cannot even predict whether or not ahome run will occur in a particular game. That does not mean that home runs don't exist.

Scientific evidence in the statistical realm is based on replication of the same averageperformance or relationship over the long run. We would not expect a fair coin to result infive heads and five tails over each set of ten tosses, but we can expect the proportion of headsand tails to settle down to about one half over a very long series of tosses. Similarly, a goodbaseball hitter will not hit the ball exactly the same proportion of times in each game butshould be relatively consistent over the long run."

Whether you agree or not, this is science and is written by a scientist.

Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world? Morpheus

"2.2 Statistical Issues and DefinitionsFew human capabilities are perfectly replicable on demand. For example, even the besthitters in the major baseball leagues cannot hit on demand. Nor can we predict when someonewill hit or when they will score a home run. In fact, we cannot even predict whether or not ahome run will occur in a particular game. That does not mean that home runs don't exist.

There is something very wrong with this analogy. First, consecutive home runs have been seen to occur. Secondly, if one could measure the amount of force applied by the hitters, the spot hit, the stance, the wind and all the other factors that might influence the ball's trajectory, one could indeed predict if it would result in a home run. The hitter might not know it because the hitter will not be as precise as a scientist or mathematician making calculations.

For an accurate prediction, the hitter would have to tell the scientist how he's planning to do it. The scientist will then calculate and predict whether or not a home run is likely to ensue. In principle, this can be done successfully. It is harder for the hitter in practice because the hitter would have to do exactly what he told the scientist.

Thirdly, of course home runs exist because they have been observed to occur, everyone can see they have potential to happen within the game context, hitter can aim for home runs, and, needless to say, they are more likely than miracles, God, fairies, and psi. It's a matter of probability and it is certainly not 50-50 to warrant mere belief without evidence (blind faith) or agnosticism. Certainty that it occurs? Absolutely! Even I have scored consecutive home runs on the Wii!

Can you see how flawed the home run analogy is?

Scientific evidence in the statistical realm is based on replication of the same averageperformance or relationship over the long run. We would not expect a fair coin to result infive heads and five tails over each set of ten tosses, but we can expect the proportion of headsand tails to settle down to about one half over a very long series of tosses. Similarly, a goodbaseball hitter will not hit the ball exactly the same proportion of times in each game butshould be relatively consistent over the long run."

Again, the nitty-gritty of the how (hitting/tossing) is not taken into consideration. How much force applied? How many times will the coin flip in the air as a consequence? Even Newton would be appalled at the fact that many important factors are being ignored for an accurate prediction.

Whether you agree or not, this is science and is written by a scientist.

More like a statistically-biased pseudo-scientist. People in the realm of parapsychology have never been able to conclusively demonstrate that psychic phenomena exist! But you know what their aim is? To try to prove, at any cost, what hasn't even been demonstrated to be the case. In the process of their experiments they often deliberately tamper with their instruments or change their figures. Then they cry when their results are not replicated to the same degree by other teams. This happened with Daryl Bem, too, with his precognition studies.

Anyway, this shows that you cannot cheat science and in the end the truth is uncovered. Despite over a hundred years of failing to provide conclusive evidence, these pseudo-scientific hypocrites are still clutching at straws - yet, they have the gall to say, "It is too often the case that people on both sides of the question debate the existence of psychic functioning on the basis of their personal belief systems rather than on an examination of the scientific data."

You highlighted well... "According to her..." - that's right. And if you are going to base your conclusions on expectations of chance (gamblers do this everyday and lose (!)) and with that declare that psychic functioning has been well established, well, I rest my case, Ms Utts! Expectation of chance, in itself, is a fallacy when you give it utmost importance. You expect to not find any patterns ever, because it is our definition, in a way, of what looks random. But this does not exclude the possibility of random patterns. In fact, as I alluded to before, if these never occurred, then it would be really weird.

Of course Jessica Utts is controversial...

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

There is always something suspicious about people who jump the gun based on preconceptions. It is not a case of saying that psi is not involved. It is a case of pointing out those mundane explanations that have not been ruled out. Hence their outcomes are not only biased, they are premature.

Moreover, I cannot conceive of a world where consciousness can remotely influence objective reality in the absence of free will. To me, it is more obvious that it is the other way around. The fact that a primordial part of our brains can cause us to sneeze, non-autonomously I might add, and we are forced to pause (causing some annoyance at times), is quite telling.

Jessica Utts to the basket for me.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Moreover, I cannot conceive of a world where consciousness can remotely influence objective reality

In one sense agree but in another just like a virus if you could insert a routine into a mind then you could affect reality quite easily. We do this when we convince people to do what we want so its just a small step to do it in another way

Who are you I asked, the reply "dont be silly, we are your daughers" many years before they were born

Even in such case, consciousness is not the prime mover, or the think that controls, if you will, even though it appears that way.

The hypnotist may get his subject in a mental state that is open to suggestion and in this way the latter is at the mercy of the former to some degree. But this doesn't take away from the fact that the hypnotist's intentions and urges are driven by brain states, prior causes, and even the environment -

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

As I was saying, the hypnotist does not control his own brain states. He is just another cosmic puppet like his subject. Just a body of chemicals being effected upon and effecting another body in turn.

If he needs to vomit, his medulla oblongata will activate, making him convulse against his sense of will (which is not free in the first place, but constrained by his own physiology). He will throw up and there is nothing he can do about it.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

Now imagine that he is so used to the routine of hypnotising, just as he is of driving to work every day, and he goes on autopilot...

He performs his hypnotic act without being aware of what he's doing, without being conscious of it as his mind drifts elsewhere. A reminder here that a sleepwalker can perform complex tasks while asleep and being unconscious!

The subject is hypnotised based on his perception of what the hypnotist is doing and saying, not the hypnotist's consciousness, if you catch my drift.

Consciousness may be present, like the illusory witness (and illusory controller), but it is not required.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

When I fall asleep after Wake Back To Bed, I just let my subconscious be the hypnotist and try to follow along as best I can. The architect of my dreams is my subconscious, and there is nothing I can do about that. The best I can do is place 'myself' there and be a main character. But even then, who is the true 'puppet master'?

My subconscious 'hypnotist' doesn't know a thing, and is a babbling idiot, but still puts me under regarless and I follow along with the nonsense most of the time...... then it's up to ME, whatever 'me' is, (the ego), to awaken and start to question who this 'authority figure' is who is doing this to 'me'.

(The awareness behind the dream as described by many others).

Self hypnosis might be what we do every night and not even know it, (called dreams) and even when lucid we need to realize that we may just be a puppet in a show and we are not the true puppet masters. (Reminds me of that cartoon image Summerlander shared in a post a while back).

(Off tangent, but who cares? We're talking about more important things now.)